The following was written after attending a screening of "The Little Things That Run the World" --a fascinating film about insects and their global decline in number and variety--at the 2026 Princeton Environmental Film Festival (PEFF). There don't appear to be any other reviews of the film online.
As a land manager and gardener who has long catered indirectly to the needs of insects, I emerged from this hour and forty five minute documentary with a deep sense of both gratitude and frustration. The film excels at revealing the beauty and diversity of insects, yet is inexplicably dismissive towards several factors that are likely driving the dramatic decline in their numbers.
First, some of the many positives. As the film introduces us to the mind-boggling diversity of the insect world, it also provides portraits of a memorable cast of characters who show their steadfast love for insects in varied ways. The film is dedicated to E.O. Wilson, and apparently takes its title from an article Wilson wrote in 1986. In one scene in this documentary, we see the preeminent entomologist in his last year or years, still mobile enough to comb a gentrified suburban landscape with a net, in search of insects to show us. Fittingly for the theme of the movie, he finds none. In the 21st century, I've seen the great environmentalists of our era age while civilization continues stubbornly down its self-destructive path. Wilson provides a dramatic example, his right eye drooped to a close as if part of him really doesn't want to see what's happening to the natural world he has devoted his vigorous life to studying.
There are so many fascinating human portraits in this film, and so many ways to love insects: by photographing their otherworldly micro-features with a powerful camera, or steadfastly building decades of data on their numbers. Other researchers accumulate countless trays of countless tiny bees all lined up, each skewered with a pin, awaiting someone with the passion and curiosity to study their features. We visit a gardener who gradually dug up his lawn to plant wildflowers until there was no lawn left.
In the film, director Doug Hawes-Davis visits backyards and farms where insects and the plant diversity that supports them are valued and nurtured. Then, with the help of drone photography, he occasionally lifts us up and over the landscape to see how one nature lover's diverse plot of land is dwarfed by the anti-nature world of buildings, roads, and lawns that surrounds it. Vistas of vast almond plantations, sterile country club developments, and corn fields drive home the massive scale of simplified landscapes that have displaced complex nature.
Why does the film visit the almond plantations in California? Because early each year beekeepers truck more than 80% of all U.S. honeybees to one area of California on semi-trailers to pollinate those almond trees. The high quality pollen and nectar from the almond flowers gives the bees an early feast, but the annual mass gathering also serves as a giant spreader event for disease and pathogens increasingly afflicting honeybee populations. We also travel to Germany, where a longterm study using appropriately named Malaise traps documented a 76% drop in insect biomass over 27 years. There are other signs of declining insect numbers. Some species of bumblebees once common in the eastern U.S. have disappeared altogether. Windshields are no longer splattered with insects.
The movie's website promises insight into cause:
What is causing this extinction crisis? What can be done to reverse the trend? The Little Things that Run the World attempts to find answers to those questions and more.
But it is here that the film falls short. Yes, today's farms and lawns are far larger and more sterile than in the past. Development has usurped and fragmented habitat. But the film barely mentions climate change, and no reference is made to invasive species other than when a few volunteers are filmed naively hacking at a patch of Phragmitis--a manual approach to fighting this pernicious invasive plant that is doomed to failure. Though some pesticides surely play a role in insect decline, the film vilifies them all, including the low-toxicity herbicides that no manager of native habitat could possibly do without--any more than a doctor can effectively practice medicine without medicine. In this way, the film contradicts E.O. Wilson himself.
The film could have considered other potential causes of insect decline--for instance the increase in the number of deer, whose appetites have erased the varied native understory vegetation that herbivorous insects need to survive. It's worth noting that the film seldom ventures into forests. Deep shade suppresses the sorts of wildflowers and shrubs that can sustain pollinators through the summer months. In this way, the massive succession of the eastern U.S. from fields to dense second-growth forests over the past century may be a mixed blessing.
A lot of environmental threats can be characterized as "too much of a good thing." There's too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, too many deer, too many of this or that invasive species. Some types of herbicides, like medicine, can be helpful in small amounts, harmful if overused. There can even be too many trees stealing sunlight from the more diminutive species pollinators need.
Devoting quality time to memorable portraits of people, the film neglected to use its powers of visualization to document important drivers of insect decline: vast stretches of invasive species, a forest understory stripped of native plants by deer, and the stress of increasingly radical swings in weather, be they from deluge to drought or from hot to cold to searing hot again. While rightly questioning the simplified suburban landscapes that cheat insects of habitat, the film left unchallenged the comforting and crippling environmental orthodoxy that trees are all good and pesticides all bad.
The film is definitely worth seeing for all its great qualities, but the seemingly willful false narrative about cause is reason to follow it with a discussion of all the likely drivers of insect decline left unmentioned.
Related writings:
Reviews of books, articles and opeds denying the threat of invasive species
No comments:
Post a Comment